tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/queens-speech-2015-17332/articlesQueen's speech 2015 – The Conversation2016-06-01T12:17:53Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/601272016-06-01T12:17:53Z2016-06-01T12:17:53ZThousands of British expats excluded from voting in the EU referendum<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124663/original/image-20160531-25573-1s4pm06.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Closed to expats of 15 years or more.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/secretlondon/6997132774/in/photolist-bEj8Nf-7ZcMCS-dp1GA-7Z3QXw-7ZcMQJ-rzocUJ-9ETB5R-81nQds-7Z2aa6-7Z2ahM-81nL45-sescLM-svSyBT-81nNwJ-JGRNC-sef6Ap-7Za2VB-273Rd-7pwcZE-7YZ6oK-7Z3iZU-7Z3k6w-sfQ3Bf-stt6YL-9Fghvp-88HbqE-sew7GF-7XC9vz-6tLNnW-6tBtwa-dtxfW3-sctpvX-7ZLsVd-nGsGWv-JFinJ-scLn3X-7Z9swd-27ihw-dpadR-ryWiXN-bDYma5-sfP9Z5-26Uxv-JFicY-7Za8XL-82EDuL-6vXJoS-semSvG-7Z7UDn-bnsD2k">secretlondon123/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36370522">decision</a> by judges in the Supreme Court has finally put an end to the legal challenge of two British citizens claiming to have been unfairly excluded from voting in the EU referendum. They were campaigning against the <a href="researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05923/SN05923.pdf">law</a> which disenfranchises people who have lived outside the UK for 15 years or more. </p>
<p>Lawyers for Harry Shindler MBE, a war veteran living in Italy, and Jaquelyn MacLennan, a lawyer resident in Belgium, <a href="https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2016/March-2016/Expats-in-High-Court-legal-action-over-exclusion-f">pursued their claim</a> that the EU Referendum Act (Section 2) is incompatible with EU law. They argued that it “restricts their directly effective EU law rights of freedom of movement” and acts as a penalty for exercising this right.</p>
<p>Following hearings in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the UK’s final court of appeal, endorsed the lower courts’ rejection of the claim. It ruled that, even if EU law did apply (and there was disagreement between the courts over this point), there had not been any “interference” with the claimants’ <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2016-0105/240516-am.html">right of free movement</a> – which was the basis of the case.</p>
<p>What’s unclear is how many people will be affected by the ruling. Estimated numbers of British citizens resident in the EU range <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06077">from 1.2m</a> to <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06077">2m</a>, but there is no easy way of knowing how many of these have been there for more than 15 years. </p>
<p>While the legal arguments discussed in the case were highly complex, the political argument was clear and compelling: if the UK votes to leave the EU, British citizens resident elsewhere in the EU will lose their status as European citizens – and all the associated rights relating to residency, working rights, access to healthcare and welfare, <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7525">and transfers of pension schemes</a>. Not surprising then that they should want to participate in the decision to Leave or Remain. We can assume that the vast majority would probably choose the latter.</p>
<p>Ironically, it was largely because of this assumption that the government feared any attempt on its part to bend the franchise rules would expose it to accusations by the Out camp of gerrymandering. During the parliamentary debates on the EU Referendum Bill last autumn, ministers seemed to have (rather naively) <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-11-18/debates/15111858000643/EuropeanUnionReferendumBill#contribution-15111860000003">imagined</a> that by appearing to uphold a level playing field, it would avoid the sort of mudslinging that now divides the two camps <a href="https://next.ft.com/content/c42b5d60-25a9-11e6-8ba3-cdd781d02d89">within the Conservative Party</a>. But, in the event, the government may well have cut off its nose to spite its face.</p>
<h2>An illogical situation</h2>
<p>The UK government’s position on this matter is all the more questionable given its intention, announced in the Queen’s Speech of May 2015, to replace the 15-year rule <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/430149/QS_lobby_pack_FINAL_NEW_2.pdf">with a Votes For Life Bill</a>. If this Bill had been passed before the EU Referendum Bill, the legal challenge would have been unnecessary. No timetable has been announced, however, despite repeated statements of intent to see it through. </p>
<p>The result is an illogical situation, where the government has rejected the legal challenge by Shindler and MacLellan for no other stated reason than to defend a position which it is committed to reversing before the end of its mandate. This is despite having recognised both the potential negative impact of Brexit on the lives of British citizens resident in the EU and the arbitrary nature of the 15-year cut off point for voting. </p>
<p>The illogicality is further compounded by the fact that Irish citizens and non-British Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK (even temporarily), will be able to vote in the referendum. Yet EU citizens resident in the UK, whose European citizenship rights will also be brought into question in the case of Brexit, will not.</p>
<h2>Government challenged</h2>
<p>There is clearly considerable confusion regarding the appropriate basis for voting rights: citizenship or residence? And this is not the first time that a UK government has been legally challenged by British expats on the issue of limiting overseas voting rights. There have been two previous claims that pertained specifically to the franchise for parliamentary elections. </p>
<p>Harry Shindler previously fought a case against the UK government at the European Court of Human Rights <a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-119229#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-119229%22%5D%7D">from 2009 to 2013</a> and James Preston, a British expatriate resident in Madrid, made a <a href="http://eudo-citizenship.eu/caselawDB/docs/UK%20Preston%202012%20EWCA%20Civ%201378_ENGLISH.pdf">claim for judicial review in 2011-12</a>. Both claims were dismissed because the “interference” with the claimants’ rights of free movement were said to be “too general and speculative”.</p>
<p>If the government is genuinely committed to introducing votes for life, it will have to give serious thought to how it might be implemented. If the Shindler-MacLellan challenge had been successful, it would have had to rush through new legislation to enable all British citizens resident in the EU (but not elsewhere in the world) to vote in the upcoming referendum. This would have presented major logistical problems of electoral registration, especially given the very tight time frame involved, as was recognised by the judges in their conclusions. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court decision has bought the government some more time to consider the issues at stake in this important constitutional change. Meanwhile, all British citizens resident abroad, within or outside the EU, and who left the UK less than 15 years ago, still have until June 7 to register online to vote either by post or by proxy (which they can do <a href="http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register-to-vote">here</a>).</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60127/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Collard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>British citizens who have lived outside the UK for 15 years or more won't have a say.Susan Collard, Senior Lecturer in French Politics & Contemporary European Studies , University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/424842015-05-28T10:36:48Z2015-05-28T10:36:48ZConservative education plans are poetic - but are they practical?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83224/original/image-20150528-32187-1y8sg3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">She&#39;s got skills. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cybrarian77/6284181389/sizes/l">cybrarian77/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Each year, the Queen’s speech marks the point where the poetry of aspiration gets translated into the hard slog of legislation and implementation. The Conservative <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-conservatives-hold-the-course-with-schools-plan-40192">manifesto for education</a> was certainly bold and aspirational: firmly targeted at parents (the chapter on education is headed “giving your child the best start in life”), the document promised a “good primary school place for every child”, with “zero tolerance of failure”. It pledged that struggling and failing schools would be taken over, good schools – of whatever type – would be allowed to expand, and 500 new free schools would be established. </p>
<p>Now, the government plans to introduce an Education Bill which will tackle schools that are “<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-coasting-school-41993">failing and coasting</a>” by forcing institutions deemed by Ofsted to be “requiring improvement” to accept new headteachers, unless they can demonstrate a plan for rapid improvement. </p>
<p>The new school leadership would be backed by expert sponsors, or high-performing neighbouring schools. The best headteachers would also take control of failing primary schools, through the expansion of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/national-leaders-of-education-a-guide-for-potential-applicants#overview">National Leaders of Education</a> programme. All secondary schools that fall into this category would be converted into academies.</p>
<h2>Right tools for the job?</h2>
<p>The challenge here is that the manifesto promises two fundamentally different sets of tools to achieve its goals. On one hand, it is held that the market will deliver: good schools will expand, or good headteachers and leadership teams will take over the leadership of weaker schools. New schools – new free schools – will develop where they are needed. On the other hand, it is regulation and intervention that will deliver: Ofsted inspection will become even more important, and someone – presumably regional schools commissioners – will intervene to academise schools and to replace leadership teams. </p>
<p>These tensions between the market and intervention make for uneasy policy, and have sharp practical implications. There’s no necessary connection between the areas where additional school places are needed and where good schools are located. And there’s <a href="http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/a-rising-tide-the-competitive-benefits-of-free-schools">evidence to suggest</a> that free schools have the biggest impact on standards, not in areas where they were “needed” for the supply of school places, but in areas where they introduced surplus provision, generating competition and choice. </p>
<p>Equally, not all good schools want to expand – and there are few market incentives for them to do so. If a good school puts its own quality in jeopardy by expanding, it now runs the risk of being categorised as “requiring improvement”, which would trigger intervention and potential takeover.</p>
<h2>Prosaic, not poetic</h2>
<p>The challenges of the education marketplace are not confined to school supply. It is likely that the new legislation will require schools in an intervention category to accept new headteachers, unless they can demonstrate a plan for rapid improvement. In practice, of course, all schools in a category are required to produce a plan for rapid improvement. But setting this aside, the problem is likely to be that there are simply not enough good school leaders (who are prepared to risk their career), or, indeed, enough good academy chains to meet these requirements. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83229/original/image-20150528-32170-1ahq2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Requiring improvement’?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/380814854/sizes/l">dullhunk/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are outstanding school leaders and there are outstanding academy chains – just as there are outstanding local authorities. In the early years of academisation – under both Labour and coalition governments – the academy chains that ran into trouble were those that expanded too fast, taking on too many schools. Managing that marketplace will be a real challenge for the government, and will need a legislative underpinning.</p>
<p>There’s one more issue. Running through the proposed legislation is a concern with schools – good ones, struggling ones, failing ones, new ones. But <a href="http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/pisa%20in%20focus%20n27%20(eng)--FINAL_version2.pdf">research consistently finds</a> that variation within schools is much greater than between schools. The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unseen-children-access-and-achievement-20-years-on">Ofsted report</a> on “unseen children” – for which I was on the advisory panel – understood this well, and examined the performance of poor children in otherwise good schools. </p>
<p>The key drivers here are neither the structure of the school system, nor academisation, but a consistent focus on the quality of teaching. As the <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/Manifesto">Conservative Party manifesto</a> puts it; “teaching is a highly skilled profession”. The key focus needs to be on how we recruit, develop and deploy teachers: the English labour market for teachers is one of the most devolved in the world, meaning there are few levers we can pull to get the best teachers into the schools where they are needed most.</p>
<p>Over the past five years, the landscape of education governance has been transformed. Academy chains and regional schools commissioners have forged strong links back to the Department for Education. The 1944 settlement – which deliberately restricted the power of central government, and vested control over education in a complex mix of local education authorities, foundations and churches – has been unwound.</p>
<p>The relationships between central government and individual schools, between the market and intervention, will govern the implementation of the Conservative manifesto. Yet all education politics is ultimately local – about this school in this place: very prosaic, and not at all poetic.</p>
<p><em>This article was co-published with <a href="https://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/conservative-education-plans-are-poetic-but-are-they-practical/">UCL IoE London</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42484/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Husbands does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The new government wants to take on failing and coasting schools, but they may not have the right tools for the job.Chris Husbands, Director of the Institute of Education and Professor of Education, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/422792015-05-27T14:47:07Z2015-05-27T14:47:07ZTories take a big risk by limiting strike action<p>Parliament has officially opened and the new Conservative government has laid out its policy agenda for the next year in the Queen’s speech. One of the key proposals is to reform strike laws, with a view to curbing industrial action. </p>
<p>Changes would mean that strikes affecting essential public services (listed as health, transport, fire services or schools) will need to be backed by 40% of eligible union members, and a minimum 50% turnout in strike ballots. The government also proposes to lift restrictions on the use of agency staff to replace striking workers. </p>
<p>In the lead-up to the Queen’s speech, newly appointed <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32702585">business secretary Sajid Javid claimed</a> that over the last five years, strike action has taken place where “perhaps only 10% to 15% of the members of that profession actually voted for it”. Citing the impact that strikes have on “ordinary people”, Javid said, “by increasing the thresholds it will certainly increase the hurdles that need to be crossed, but that’s the right thing to do, it’s the fair thing to do.”</p>
<h2>Railing against authority</h2>
<p>Recent negotiations over the <a href="https://theconversation.com/strike-force-why-railway-unions-hit-harder-than-the-rest-42096">proposed rail strike</a>, which was narrowly averted ahead of bank holiday Monday, can offer some useful context here. Members of the TSSA and RMT unions were due to walk out for 24 hours, in what would have been the the first UK-wide rail strike in 20 years. </p>
<p>The dispute started after unions rejected a four-year pay deal, which included a bonus of £500, followed by three years of rises in line with RPI inflation. The offer would have seen pay lag behind the rate of inflation and National Rail refused to extend the “no compulsory redundancy” for the last two years of the deal. Network Rail argued staff had been comparatively well paid over the past four years, while unions feared restructuring could mean significant job losses after 2016. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82944/original/image-20150526-24748-1icsbd1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A sign of trouble.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tompagenet/8734194733/sizes/l">tompagenet/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s worth noting that the ballot for this strike saw 80% of RMT members in favour of strike action, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-rail-strikes-rmt-union-to-vote-on-most-disruptive-industrial-action-in-living-memory-10243787.html">on a 60% turnout</a>: well above the threshold the new government plans to introduce. From a turnout of 52% of TSSA’s 3,000 members, some 53% voted in favour of strike action, while 79% voted for action short of a strike (members were asked to support one or more options). </p>
<p>Yet after days of talks at <a href="http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1461">Acas</a> – the UK’s conciliation service – the TSSA “suspended” action after receiving an improved offer, followed shortly after by the RMT. This highlights the importance of independent, behind-the-scenes assistance that allows both parties to continue to negotiate without losing face. In light of these events, the Conservative government’s proposals raise a crucial question – would it be possible to resolve disputes like this fairly, if unions’ power to call a strike were mitigated, or even taken away entirely? </p>
<h2>Back to the future</h2>
<p>As it stands, Acas provides <a href="http://www.cassknowledge.com/sites/default/files/article-attachments/342%7E%7Echrisrowley-dispute_settlement.pdf">a range of help</a>, from conciliation (where a neutral third party identifies the key issues in a dispute) to mediation (where a neutral third party suggests solutions that are not binding) through to arbitration (where a neutral third party suggests solutions that are binding). Private companies may also offer similar services, while organisations – even universities like the LSE – may also have their own system of in-house mediation to, as they put it, “improve and develop working relationships without the use of formal procedures”. </p>
<p>But there are <a href="http://www.cassknowledge.com/sites/default/files/article-attachments/342%7E%7Echrisrowley-dispute_settlement.pdf">a set of issues</a> with arrangements as they may actually inhibit serious attempts at settlement with the “chilling” of negotiations preventing meaningful talks with low offers and high demands across a range of issues, as sides become “addicted” to simply waiting to go to arbitration where they believe they may get what they really want. This has lead some to propose the use American style pendulum arbitration whereby the total offer or demand of one side or the other is awarded in its entirety.</p>
<p>If the ability to take official strikes is restricted, it could increase other forms of industrial action, such as walkouts and wildcat strikes – sudden and unexpected strikes, which lack official union support. So, one alternative is to go"back to the future. </p>
<p>Rather than having ad hoc arbitration, we could have permanent systems, like the Railway Staff National Tribunal, chaired by the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/nov/19/lord-mccarthy">late Lord McCarthy</a> – my supervisor for my DPhil at <a href="http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/pages/default.aspx">Nuffield College, University of Oxford</a>. The tribunal was the industry’s ultimate appeal court, but its rulings were not binding. McCarthy oversaw a number of union difficulties throughout his 13 years as chair until 1983. </p>
<p>Yet the tribunal brought its own problems. Its independence was increasingly questioned over time, and there were concerns that it produced “flip flop” decisions; alternating between the sides (irrespective of the actual veracity of the claims being considered at the time) to try to be seen as maintaining its impartiality.</p>
<p>Although a reversion to past practices may not be what’s needed to ensure effective industrial relations, the Conservatives must be wary of creating a vacuum by making industrial action ever more difficult – they need to put something in place. Otherwise, as it stands, Acas will be overwhelmed by its workload.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42279/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Rowley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The threat of a strike can cause trepidation among the public - but where would we be without them?Chris Rowley, Professor of Human Resource Management, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/424282015-05-27T14:07:22Z2015-05-27T14:07:22ZQueen's speech: Tories pick their battles with an awkward to-do list<p>The Queen’s Speech, essentially, is a government’s to-do list. Whether the government of the day is strong or not, every year it includes a number of things they’d rather not do. There were quite a few of these in 2015 – reminding us that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-2015-conservatives-gain-in-england-snp-rampant-across-scotland-experts-react-41414">narrow Conservative victory</a> in the general election was only the beginning of the party’s troubles.</p>
<p>Take the EU referendum bill, for example. Now that Labour has <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-24/u-k-labour-drops-opposition-to-referendum-on-eu-membership">accepted</a> the need for a vote on EU membership, there should be no problem getting one through parliament. But the SNP wants each country of the UK to be <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/sturgeon-scots-must-not-exit-eu-against-our-will-1-3783222">treated separately</a>, so that if England votes heavily against continued membership Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland wouldn’t have to follow it to the Brexit. </p>
<p>That would make the vote on the EU a referendum on the future of the UK – a distinctly nasty prospect for Cameron, not least because the SNP argument can’t be laughed off.</p>
<h2>Pick and choose</h2>
<p>Then there’s the little matter of a Scotland bill, which would concede more powers north of the border. The UK government has lost control of the devolution agenda: now the SNP will be able to browse through the list of possible concessions and make a big fuss if it doesn’t get the ones it likes. A bit like the UK’s “pick and choose” attitude to the EU, really – and another thing Cameron would rather not have to do.</p>
<p>Among the more conventional stuff, at least plans to extend childcare should command widespread support. But then there’s the proposal to tighten the law on strike action. Apart from the risk of looking vindictive, the danger with this one is that the logic which demands a certain percentage vote in support of action could also be applied to governments. </p>
<p>If you need 40% support before you can call a strike, surely a government should think twice before launching divisive policies when it only got 36.9% of the popular vote? Cameron will have to hope to get the debates on this subject over quickly while no-one is watching.</p>
<h2>Spare us</h2>
<p>Finally, there’s the proposed bill to make it illegal to increase certain taxes. As we all know, this promise, made in an hour of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32498460">Conservative desperation</a> during the election campaign, is utterly pointless. We also know that this government would do almost anything – grant independence to Scotland, say, or adopt a constructive attitude to the EU – rather than raise taxes that affect their natural supporters.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83103/original/image-20150527-4844-5xoazq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Brave faces.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But there are foreseeable circumstances in which even George Osborne might have to resort to a tax hike, and there are only so many <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22521314">pasties</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-who-has-been-hit-hardest-by-the-bedroom-tax-39414">bedrooms</a> he can tax. In those circumstances, the repeal of the government’s majestic Act to Ban Tax Rises will be rushed through in a few uncomfortable minutes.</p>
<p>At least the Cameron government has spared itself the task of replacing the Human Rights Act with a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-abolishing-the-human-rights-act-will-be-a-rough-ride-for-michael-gove-41590">British Bill of Rights</a>, at least for the time being. </p>
<p>But when that legislation is finally ready, its parliamentary passage might seem like a picnic compared to some of the things the government already has on its plate. It will certainly be an eventful parliamentary year for the Tories, tasked with hauling their unwieldy and awkward agenda over the line while the other parties scour the streets looking for potential leaders who can handle a bacon sandwich.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42428/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Garnett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>David Cameron and his government will have to be masters of tactics to get through this parliament. They're already correcting their course.Mark Garnett, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/424272015-05-27T13:07:15Z2015-05-27T13:07:15ZQueen's speech 2015: the experts respond<p><em>Parliament has officially opened and the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-speech-2015">Queen’s speech</a> has been delivered. The speech – written by prime minister David Cameron – outlined the new government’s ambitious policy agenda for the coming year. From the so-called “snoopers’ charter”, to city deals for a “northern powerhouse”, our experts are on hand to explain what it all means.</em></p>
<h2>Europe</h2>
<p><strong>Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow at The Centre for European Policy Studies</strong></p>
<p>The speech contained precious few words on the government’s plans for the UK’s place in Europe, but those words were not totally uninformative. The proposal to hold a referendum before the end of 2017 was not news and the wording leaves room for the option to do it earlier – which is what the government would like if possible.</p>
<p>The most interesting point was about the three Rs – repatriation, renegotiation, and reform. Repatriation was missing entirely from the speech – and quite rightly so, since the government’s own thorough <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-nation-the-great-european-question-39095">Balance of Competence Review</a> showed no case for handing certain powers from the EU to national governments.</p>
<p>Reform was, on the other hand, highlighted as being something that could benefit all member states. This was more than just diplomacy, but one founded in real opportunities that the UK can promote, ranging from cutting red tape to advancing new agendas for the digital era.</p>
<p>Renegotiation also got a mention. This mostly concerns the migration and so-called benefit tourism. But otherwise there is not much to renegotiate, since the extent of existing British opt-outs is so big (the euro, justice and home affairs), while foreign policy and taxation are covered by <a href="http://europa.eu/scadplus/european_convention/majority_en.htm">unanimity decision making</a>, so nothing can be decided without the UK’s agreement anyway. </p>
<p>All told, even though Cameron has not yet shown his full hand in public when it comes to his plans for Europe, his thinking may be heading in a sensible direction. </p>
<h2>Income tax</h2>
<p><strong>Prem Sikka, Professor of Accounting at University of Essex</strong></p>
<p>The Queen’s speech included promises of legislation to ensure that people working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage do not pay income tax. It also mentioned new laws to guarantee that there are no rises in income tax rates, value added tax (VAT) or national insurance for the next five years. A related <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-sets-out-his-vision-for-the-country-in-a-one-nation-queens-speech">government press release</a> says that annual income tax personal allowance will increase from the current rate of £10,600 to £12,500 by 2020. </p>
<p>But all is not what it seems. The minimum wage rate from October 2015 is £6.70 per hour for adults. So anyone working a 37 hours a week would earn about £13,000 a year, and would still be liable to income tax.</p>
<p>The higher personal allowances may help the middle-classes, but will do nothing for <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7735">44% of adults</a> whose income is already too low to pay any income tax. The poor pay VAT at 20%, the same rate as the very rich. The government statistics show that the <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-12-22/poor-households-pay-47-of-income-in-tax/">poorest 10%</a> of households now pay nearly 47% of their gross income in direct and indirect taxes, while the richest 10% pay 35% of their income in taxes. This imbalance is not addressed.</p>
<h2>Devolution</h2>
<p><strong>Peter Lynch, Politics at the University of Stirling</strong></p>
<p>So, this is what a Conservative Queen’s Speech looks like — 26 legislative proposals not watered down by the Liberal Democrats.</p>
<p>Some bills are in keeping with the coalition theme though, such as the various proposals for more devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These were a consequence of cross-party discussions (and the independence referendum in Scotland’s case).</p>
<p>The Scotland bill already appeared in draft form in January as part of the government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397079/Scotland_EnduringSettlement_acc.pdf">white paper on Scotland</a>, which contained the proposals from the cross-party <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot/smith-commission-report/">Smith Commission</a>.</p>
<p>The government plans to pass legislation on these proposals in time for the 2016 Scottish elections — even though they currently seem incoherent. The plans will be subject to criticism and amendment in parliament along the way.</p>
<p>The bill contains plans to increase Scottish control of income tax and public spending, allocate a share of VAT and transfer some welfare powers. The tax powers are important as a measure of fiscal autonomy but also as a political tactic to support the Union through devolution and allow the Scottish Conservatives to present themselves as a <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/david-camerons-government-to-fast-track-new-powers-so-tories-can-offer.127220575">low-tax party at the 2016 election</a>. </p>
<h2>Surveillance</h2>
<p><strong>Helen Fenwick, Professor of Law at Durham University</strong> </p>
<p>New powers to collect data were referred to briefly in the Queen’s speech and will arise under the Investigatory Powers Bill. It will cover powers that would have arisen under the Communications and Data Bill, often referred to as the “snoopers’ charter”. Without the Liberal Democrats in government to oppose it, these powers <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/theresa-may-revive-snoopers-charter-lib-dem-brakes-off-privacy-election">can now re-emerge</a>. But the new bill goes much further and will increase the security services’ warranted powers for the mass interception of the <em>content</em> of communications.</p>
<p>This legislation will require data communications companies to store the details of messages sent on social media and gaming, voice calls made over the internet, emails and phone calls – known collectively as metadata – for 12 months. </p>
<p>It will probably require that the information is stored in a common format data in vast databases; the security services and police would be able to access this meta-data without the permission of a judge, in the interests of investigating criminal or terrorist-related activity. </p>
<p>The idea behind the new bill is that details and content of communications should not be kept secret, just because they exist in digital form. It aims to address the fact that terrorist and other organised criminal groups are increasingly exploiting available communications technology in a range of sophisticated ways; for instance, by using encryption, and communicating via platforms such as WhatsApp and Snapchat. </p>
<p>The objections likely to be made to the bill are grounded in fears about the state’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-right-to-privacy-in-the-uk-15265">invasion of privacy</a>, and the security of the material; those concerns are likely to be echoed by the big communications companies such as Google. </p>
<h2>Health</h2>
<p><strong>Andrew Street, Professor at Centre for Health Economics at University of York</strong></p>
<p>The Queen’s speech reiterates the Conservatives’ promise to implement Simon Steven’s <a href="http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5yfv-web.pdf">five-year forward view</a>, which enjoys cross-party support. This includes plans to improve access to mental health service, reconfigure services and better integrate health and social care.</p>
<p>Cameron is committed to a 24/7 NHS, though this <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/may/21/obesity-diabetes-governments-top-priorities-says-jeremy-hunt?CMP=share_btn_tw">doesn’t appear to be among the priorities</a> of his secretary of state for health, Jeremy Hunt. Operating 24/7 hospital services will be expensive, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.3207/full">estimated to increase annual costs</a> by up to £1.4 billion – arguably too much to justify the hoped-for reduction in higher death rates over the weekend. </p>
<p>It will be challenging to introduce seven-day GP services when there are <a href="http://www.rcgp.org.uk/news/2015/may/rcgp-response-to-prime-minister-speech-on-seven-day-nhs.aspx">insufficient GPs to meet demand</a> during normal hours, hence <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-on-health-the-tories-make-vague-promises-and-claims-that-dont-stand-up-40189">the manifesto promise</a> to recruit an additional 5,000 GPs.</p>
<p>There was a reminder that the Conservatives have promised to increase the NHS budget, by £8 billion over the next five years. But an additional £30 billion <a href="http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/5854661/Adult+social+care+funding+2014+state+of+the+nation+report/e32866fa-d512-4e77-9961-8861d2d93238">is required to meet rising NHS demand</a>, with a projected £4 billion funding gap for adult social care. </p>
<p>The government hopes the shortfall in the NHS budget will be filled by annual productivity growth of 2% to 3%, though this would be <a href="http://www.hsj.co.uk/5084013.article#.VWWrOVXBzRZ">unprecedented</a>. Funding will prove the greatest challenge for the NHS over the parliamentary term.</p>
<h2>Human rights</h2>
<p><strong>Arman Sarvarian, Lecturer in Law at the University of Surrey</strong></p>
<p>The government has watered down its plan to put forward a bill on replacing the Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights, bowing to reported disquiet among senior Conservative backbenchers. As the opening of parliament approached, it appeared increasingly unlikely that the bill would survive passage through parliament without the full support of the party.</p>
<p>However, the Queen did announce that the government would “bring forward proposals” on this issue and it is now widely anticipated that a (presumably public) consultation will be held before measures are brought before parliament.</p>
<p>This bill was a key Conservative manifesto pledge in the run-up to the general election. The ostensible aim is to “break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights” and to hand greater power to the UK Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Prominent Conservative backbenchers opposed to this ill-advised plan include Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General, and former justice secretary Kenneth Clarke.</p>
<p>The notion that British judges are constrained by Strasbourg in their influence on human rights law is false. Whatever the avowed purpose of the reforms, their practical effect would be to threaten to subordinate judges, British and European alike, to the whims of ministers and parliamentarians on individual cases. This threatens the principle of qualified judges, not parliamentarians, deciding on individual cases.</p>
<p>Consulting the public is a tactical postponement of legislation. The government and the Conservative Party remain committed in principle to the proposals. The British public must use this consultation as an opportunity to register robust opposition to any change in the status quo. And Conservative Party members must put pressure on the leadership to abandon this policy and thus uphold the great Conservative tradition of robust commitment to the rule of law.</p>
<h2>Welfare</h2>
<p><strong>Roy Sainsbury, Professor of Social Policy at University of York</strong></p>
<p>The 2010 Queen’s speech heralded the biggest shake-up of the benefits system since <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society-professionals/2014/jul/07/-sp-beveridge-report-revisited-where-now-for-the-welfare-state">Beveridge</a>, including the introduction of Universal Credit, the benefit cap, and the bedroom tax. In contrast, this Queen’s speech is small beer; the big stuff has been done. The speech promises only that the government will “continue to reform welfare” by introducing legislation “encouraging employment by capping benefits and requiring young people to earn or learn.” </p>
<p>These two measures come as no surprise; we knew what to expect from the Conservative manifesto. First, the current benefit cap of £26,000 a year will be reduced to £23,000. Some families will therefore lose around £60 a week. As yet, we do not know how many, or how they will respond. To date nearly 60,000 households in total (overwhelmingly families with children) have had their benefits capped, saving around £100 million a year. Evidence shows that some claimants moved into work either before or after the imposition of the cap. The government has rather <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/benefit-cap-cameron-stampede-jobcentre-ifs">gilded these findings</a> as a “stampede to the jobcentre” but the majority affected by the cap have somehow adjusted to (sometimes considerable) reductions in household income. </p>
<p>The second policy innovation applies to young people under 25, who will no longer be eligible for Jobseekers Allowance or Housing Benefit – more on this below. In essence, the policy tells young people that they are expected “earn or learn”. Will it work? A pilot in 2013 <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/378308/rr888-day-one-support-for-young-people-trailblzer.pdf">showed no impact</a> on sustained job entries. But that was a pilot. Presumably lessons have been learned and we can only wait to see if “earn or learn” does better.</p>
<p>Which leaves us with the glaring omission from the Queen’s speech: the £12 billion cut in the welfare budget. As we know, repeated attempts before the election to draw the Conservatives on where these cuts will fall were met with silence. We learned nothing, and the Queen’s speech has left us still in ignorance – despite <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7762">the best efforts of the IFS</a>. But when the silence is eventually broken, all talk of benefit caps and “earn or learn” will almost certainly be swept aside, as the next big losers from welfare reforms are identified. </p>
<h2>Youth employment</h2>
<p><strong>Benjamin Bowman, PhD candidate in Politics at University of Bath</strong></p>
<p>The speech included a plan to replace the Jobseeker’s Allowance with a Youth Allowance for 18 to 21-year-olds, who will now work 30 hours compulsory labour for a £57.35 per week allowance. That equates to about £1.91 per hour.</p>
<p>The scheme plans to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29398907">enforce full employment</a> for the young. It will also <a href="http://www.adjacentgovernment.co.uk/education-schools-teaching-news/councils-lose-track-100000-neets/">centralise control</a> over the young workforce, as many MPs feel local government has dropped the ball. Young unemployment is extremely high, with 14.4% of those aged 16-24 out of work: the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/22/youth-unemployment-jobless-figure">worst gap</a> for 20 years. </p>
<p>Abolishing unemployment with compulsory labour is a radical move. Young citizens were <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/young-people-were-hit-worst-by-the-great-recession-10101672.html">worst hit</a> by the recession, and remain extremely vulnerable to low wages and poor conditions. They are <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/contracts-with-no-guaranteed-hours/zero-hour-contracts--2014/analysis-of-employee-contracts-that-do-not-guarantee-a-minimum-number-of-hours.html">three times</a> more likely to work on a zero-hours contract. Critics <a href="https://twitter.com/SkySUBC/status/567585302982557696">warn</a> that the allowance is exploiting vulnerable people already struggling to find work. If so, the Youth Allowance will merely fasten another bolt on the door separating young people from the job market.</p>
<p>There is no point building a bridge to employment unless there are jobs on the other side. If it is to succeed, the Youth Allowance must make good on David Cameron’s pledge to build <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11416694/David-Cameron-Jobless-teenagers-must-carry-out-community-work-to-get-benefits.html">“a country that rewards work”</a>. For young people, just like everyone else, the reward for work must be a decent, liveable wage and affordable housing. <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Tune_in_-_web.pdf?1419813387">Research</a> shows young people are supportive of pathways-to-work schemes. Now is the time for government to make sure the pathway leads somewhere.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Suit up or knuckle down.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexfrance/3221301604/sizes/l">Alex France/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Immigration</h2>
<p><strong>Katharine Jones, Senior Research Fellow at Coventry University</strong></p>
<p>Having already <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-immigration">set out his plans</a> last week, today David Cameron merely required the Queen to assert that his government will “control immigration”. His government proposes to make “illegal working” a criminal offence in a forthcoming Immigration Bill: the tenth piece of such legislation in the past 20 years. In the bill, the wages earned by irregular migrants – that is, migrants without a valid visa – will be defined as the “proceeds of crime”, meaning they can be confiscated by the authorities. </p>
<p>This is to be accompanied by a raft of measures, including informing private sector landlords when their tenants’ visas expire, tracing irregular migrants through the banking system, and removing the right to appeal against deportation from inside the UK. The bill will also introduce a new enforcement agency and a visa levy on businesses seeking to recruit overseas workers. It will prohibit recruitment agencies from advertising jobs overseas, without first advertising in the UK. </p>
<p>Last week, Cameron that these measures will reduce immigration to the UK, prevent UK wages being driven down and stop exploitation of migrants. None of these three arguments holds up.</p>
<p>Having all repeatedly <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31638174">failed to meet their own migration targets</a>, UK governments should accept that immigration controls turn the numbers of migrants arriving in the UK on and off like a tap. A deregulated labour market that fails to prevent exploitation and employers seeking cheap flexible labour <a href="https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/Publications/Research_projects/Labour_markets/Changing_status/Fair%20enough%20findings%20-%201%20May%202006.pdf">are the pull factors</a> for labour migrants coming to this country. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257235/analysis-of-the-impacts.pdf">Decades of research</a> have told us that migrants do not have a major negative impact on the UK labour market. And in any case it is employers that set wages, not migrants.</p>
<p>So what of his third argument –- that his proposals will stop the exploitation of migrants? Rather than protecting migrants, the new measures will do the exact opposite. We <a href="http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/files/publications/papers_please.pdf">already know</a> that the sanctions on employers for hiring irregular workers harm all migrants, while doing nothing to protect the exploited. The new measures will prevent migrants from reporting abusive employers or landlords. Worse, they will criminalise migrants for their own exploitation. </p>
<h2>Education</h2>
<p><strong>Michael Jopling, Professor in Education at Northumbria University</strong></p>
<p>Although education policy <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11610551/Nicky-Morgan-We-will-step-up-our-school-reforms-so-every-child-can-thrive.html">has had a high profile</a> since the election, today’s Queen’s speech contained only a passing reference to schools. Free schools did not feature, but the speech contained a vague commitment to giving every child the best start in life, associated with the creation of “new powers to take over failing and coasting schools and create more academies”. </p>
<p>There are two points to note here. First, linking coasting with failure and “takeover” will set alarm bells ringing. This remains a concern despite education secretary Nicky Morgan’s attempts in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32763097">recent interviews</a> to distinguish between “failing” and “coasting” schools, and to reassure the profession that coasting schools – <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-coasting-school-41993">however they’re defined</a> – will be allowed <a href="http://schoolsweek.co.uk/schools-week-editor-interviews-edcuation-secretary-audio-recording/">to develop their own improvement plans</a>. </p>
<p>Second, it signals Morgan’s desire not only to extend but also to speed up the process of becoming an academy. As the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmeduc/258/258.pdf">Education Committee emphasised in January 2015</a>, and despite the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cameron-forges-on-with-academies-revolution-despite-mounting-concerns-on-oversight-37080">government’s claims to the contrary</a>, we have no evidence yet that converting schools into academies leads to improvement. </p>
<p>So the forthcoming Education Bill risks both further <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservative-victory-means-englands-school-system-will-look-like-few-others-in-the-world-41553">isolating the English school system internationally</a> and alienating headteachers and teachers at a time <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11539560/Primary-school-places-more-must-be-done-to-ease-alarming-pressure-on-the-system.html">when rising numbers of primary age children</a> mean we need all the teachers we can get.</p>
<h2>Small businesses</h2>
<p><strong>Stephen Roper, Director of the Enterprise Research Centre at the University of Warwick</strong></p>
<p>Small business owners listening to this speech probably had rather mixed feelings about the next couple of years. </p>
<p>On the positive side the proposed <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32900673">cuts in red tape</a> will be welcome. The plan to establish a conciliation service to settle late payment and other disputes between small and large businesses will also be applauded.</p>
<p>In other countries such as Australia similar services have developed to become champions for small business interests and sometimes challenge the government on policies that are not small-business friendly. It is not yet clear whether these roles will also be part of the UK service.</p>
<p>The aim to offer 3 million new apprenticeships during this parliament will also be welcomed by many firms struggling to attract skilled employees. As recent debates have suggested, however, the key issue here will be maintaining quality as numbers are expanded. </p>
<p>The biggest negative is the uncertainty caused by the forthcoming European referendum. This may discourage some firms from investing in expanding European sales. Businesses that supply the public sector, outside health and education, may also feel the squeeze of spending cuts and the restructuring of budgets. </p>
<h2>Housing</h2>
<p><strong>Anya Ahmed, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at University of Salford</strong></p>
<p>In the Queen’s speech today, the Conservative government’s priorities for social housing were announced. The main proposal put forward was to extend the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme to housing association tenants.</p>
<p>Around 2.5 million council tenants across the UK have <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/social-housing-sales-including-right-to-buy-and-transfers">already bought their homes</a> since RTB was introduced by Thatcher’s Conservative government in 1980. </p>
<p>The government claims that these new proposals will increase house building and reduced council house waiting lists, by replacing each social unit sold. However, the National Housing Federation, Shelter and the Institute of Fiscal Studies have expressed doubts about this pledge being met. Shelter <a href="http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/03/right-to-buy-one-to-one-replacement-falling-short-in-london/">estimates that</a> only one house per ten houses sold has been built since 2012 when the government extended RTB of council homes.</p>
<p>This raises significant questions about how the proposals will impact on the supply of affordable rented housing in the UK, significant given there are currently 1.8 million households on social housing waiting lists, <a href="http://data.gov.uk/dataset/england-hssa-housing-strategy-statistical-appendix">an increase of 81%</a> since 1997.</p>
<p>There are further important questions which remain unanswered. First, the cost implications of the scheme, <a href="https://www.housing.org.uk/media/blog/right-to-buy-extension-estimated-to-cost-12-billion/">estimated at £11.2 billion</a>, and <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7730">considered potentially detrimental</a> to the UK’s economic recovery.</p>
<p>Although the scheme is to be funded by local authority stock sales and government subsidy, it is unclear how the scheme will work in practice or how it will be funded.</p>
<h2>Childcare</h2>
<p><strong>Caitlin McLean, Ailsa McKay Postdoctoral Fellow in Economics at Glasgow Caledonian University</strong></p>
<p>With the <a href="http://www.fct.bigmallet.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/Childcare_cost_survey_2015_Final.pdf#overlay-context=annual-childcare-costs-surveys">rising costs</a> of childcare putting increasing strain on family budgets, it was good to see the government’s childcare proposals feature in the Queen’s speech.</p>
<p>The Conservatives have previously proposed that working parents of three- and four-year-olds be offered free childcare for 30 hours per week – extended from the 15 per week currently on offer for all families.</p>
<p>This is a worthy goal. An inability to afford childcare services can pose a significant <a href="http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Careers-and-Carers-FINAL.pdf">barrier</a> to parents – especially mothers – seeking employment.</p>
<p>But questions remain about childcare access for families where both parents aren’t currently in employment. For instance, should these children be excluded from increased childcare hours (especially given that access to high quality early education and care plays a key role in <a href="http://www.crec.co.uk/docs/Access.pdf">reducing inequality</a>)? It is also unclear what will happen in the event that a parent loses his or her job – will the child immediately lose access to those extra funded hours?</p>
<p>And many parents would feel unable to accept an offer of employment unless childcare had already been arranged – childcare access is a prerequisite for undertaking employment, not a reward for doing so.</p>
<p>While targeting eligibility may save some money in the short run, it comes at a cost – increased administrative complexity and further entrenchment of educational inequality among children.</p>
<h2>City deals</h2>
<p><strong>Alex Nurse, Research Associate at University of Liverpool</strong></p>
<p>If there were two major thematic elements to this Queen’s Speech, they would be the economy and devolution. Sat in the middle of the government’s legislative agenda, and neatly tying these themes together, came the proposals for the northern powerhouse, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32720462">which will see a raft of powers including those for regeneration, transport and health</a> devolved away from Westminster to the cities – with <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-devo-manc-a-good-model-for-english-devolution-almost-41643">Manchester standing first in line</a>.</p>
<p>This was pitched as a means to deliver a “balanced economic recovery”, fitting neatly within the Government’s “one nation” agenda. It can be seen broadly as an attempt to help the north to catch up to London, and to <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/were-moving-scotland-manchester-votes-9254231">assuage those with itchy feet</a> as Scotland receives even more powers. </p>
<p>But the explicit mention of metro-mayors gives a clear signal to cities that have yet to sign up: this is not a free ride. They will be expected to deliver, <a href="https://theconversation.com/devolution-plan-could-be-a-poisoned-chalice-for-cities-41848">and be held democratically accountable for</a> their actions under these plans.</p>
<p>The inclusion of high speed rail is no coincidence, reminding us that HS2 has yet to clear the statute books, but also that proposals for HS3 would form part of the glue holding this revamped northern powerhouse together.</p>
<h2>Counter-extremism</h2>
<p><strong>Imran Awan, Senior Lecturer at Birmingham City University</strong></p>
<p>The government <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27777892">defines extremism</a> as “vocal or active opposition to British values”. With that in mind, it is strange that the government’s idea of tackling extremism involves a curtailment of people’s freedom of expression – surely one of Britain’s most proudly-held values. Tackling extremism is important, but this new legislation to monitor – and <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-government-bids-to-ban-free-speech-in-counter-terrorism-plan-41781">in effect criminalise</a> – free speech, is problematic.</p>
<p>The new government proposes to bring in Banning Orders and Extremism Disruption Orders, and to give Ofcom new powers to take pre-emptive action against programmes that include “extremist content”. According to the government, Banning Orders would allow the state to ban groups who seek to undermine democracy through hate speech, and are considered to be espousing “extreme” views. Meanwhile, Extremism Disruption Orders will be used if there is a “reasonable belief” that a group may be inciting religious or racial hatred, which means the public are at risk of potential violence and people may be at risk of being radicalised.</p>
<p>It is likely that these measures will only exacerbate feelings of insecurity and fear. We know from past experience that efforts to legislate against extremist ideologies can actually win terrorist groups more support. For example, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 ended up <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17596591211244157">working as a recruitment tool</a> for IRA terrorists.</p>
<p>The ancient writ of habeas corpus, due process, and the rule of law are being lost in this wave of anti-terror legislation. Accordingly, the government’s new Extremism Bill must ensure that it does not label all Muslims as potential targets, because this will only stigmatise and marginalise them. Indeed, senior figures in the Conservative cabinet <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/21/mays-plan-to-censor-tv-programmes-condemned-by-tory-cabinet-colleague">have already condemned</a> the measures.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42427/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Street receives funding from the National Institute of Health Research and the Department of Health&#39;s Policy Research Programme but the views expressed are his own.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arman Sarvarian is a non-practising member of the Bar of England and Wales and a member of the Conservative Party.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Bowman receives funding from the ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katharine Jones does not work for/consult to/own shares in any organisation which would benefit from this article. She has received funding from ILO, IOM and OSF. She is affiliated with Scottish Refugee Council and Scottish Detainee Visitors.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson is a former EU ambassador to Moscow, and receives funding from various private foundations and in some cases contracts from governments. CEPS is a politically and financially independent research institute, which receives funding a variety of sources, including membership fees, project research, foundation grants, conferences fees and publication sales.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Prem Sikka is director of the Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs (AABA), a not-for-profit organsation which campaigns for greater corporate accountability.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roy Sainsbury is Director of the Social Policy Research Unit (SPRU). The SPRU carries out research for a wide range of funders, including the Department for Work and Pensions. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Roper is Director of the Enterprise Research Centre which is funded by the ESRC, the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, Innovate UK and the major banks.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Nurse, Anya Ahmed, Caitlin McLean, Helen Fenwick, Imran Awan, Michael Jopling, and Peter Lynch do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Academic experts break down the bills in the Queen's speech and get to grips with the new Conservative government's agenda.Helen Fenwick, Professor of Law, Durham UniversityAlex Nurse, Lecturer in Planning, University of LiverpoolAndrew Street, Professor, Centre for Health Economics, University of YorkAnya Ahmed, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, University of SalfordArman Sarvarian, Lecturer in Law, University of SurreyBenjamin Bowman, Teaching Fellow in Comparative Politics, University of BathCaitlin McLean, Ailsa McKay Postdoctoral Fellow in Economics, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityImran Awan, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Director of the Centre for Applied Criminology, Birmingham City UniversityKatharine Jones, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, Coventry UniversityMichael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesMichael Jopling, Professor in Education, Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Northumbria University, NewcastlePeter Lynch, Senior Lecturer, Politics, University of StirlingPrem Sikka, Professor of Accounting, Essex Business School, University of EssexRoy Sainsbury, Director of Social Policy Research Unit, Professor of Social Policy, University of YorkStephen Roper, Professor of Enterprise and Director of the Enterprise Research Centre, Warwick Business School, Warwick Business School, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.